Ch. 1 - A Foreign Country

[tbarron]

I recently started reading Pinker's Blank Slate and was sort of summarizing the first chapter for my wife. Her response was to ask why I would even bother reading the book. Because it's so obvious that humans aren't blank slates, but I don't think Pinker is arguing so much that we aren't blank slates, but that the idea that we were has historically influenced much of western thought and that many of these basic assumptions still influence society a great deal.

I agree with you, Geo. I think that's exactly the point he was making Blank Slate. The influence the Blank Slate assumption has culturally is exemplified by how politically incorrect it is to advance other hypotheses.

But more than that even, I think Pinker presents a grand overview of science, history, and philosophy to show us where we were and where we're going to some extent. Presumably that's what he's doing in Better Angels.

My first thought is that we're living in relatively peaceful times because much of the world is on more solid economic footing than in the past. Therefore, it's all cultural. So to answer tbarron's question—is Pinker's optimism of human nature justified?—I'd have to say probably not (strictly off the cuff). Our progression into relative peace must tie into Robert Wright's "conditions on the ground" that strictly relate to new non-zero sum scenarios between nations as the world becomes increasingly smaller. But if our economy collapsed tomorrow, humans would quickly degenerate into violence once again. It seems to me that we're currently living in a bubble that's mostly fueled by cheap energy. I'm really curious to see if Pinker addresses any of these issues. Does he suggest that humans are by nature more peaceful beings? If so, I'm very skeptical perhaps cynical. Regardless, I think Pinker will take us on an interesting journey.

Interesting observations. I hope you will participate in the discussion. I think you can add a lot to it.

[tbarron]

Interesting comments here. At the moment can't really join in as my debit card was damaged and can't order downloads from Amazon

I'm sorry to hear about your debit card trouble, Heledd. I hope it's straightened out soon and you can join us.

[tbarron]

I love everything Pinker has written! I will endeavor to read this book during this discussion and join in...endeavor is the key word here as my time is short.

Great, Mr. P. I hope you'll be able to squeeze us in.

[Mr. P]

Step 1....I just got the book at the local B&N!

[DWill]

Okay! I didn't see this this thread until just a minute ago, and I see that the prospects for a discussion look promising. I still wonder about handling Pinker's loads of supporting detail, throughout his 696 pages, excluding notes. I don't like to advocate skimming in most cases, but hey, there can be honor in that.

About that foreign country he takes us to: he makes a strong rhetorical case that the past was a darker, more violent, and less happy place. At least it was if we can be sure of that from the written records. Everyone probably thinks of the Holocaust as a counter-example that must give the lie to that picture, proving that modern technology enabled us to ramp up the rate of killing. Certainly in modern times we've become much less frank about our violence; so we don't find any documents of Nazis exulting about their killing prowess. It was all done for a noble cause in their minds, which doesn't alter the fact of 6 million or so having been slaughtered. I'm sympathetic to his argument, though. It isn't just about killing, but about many other attitudes that today are considered inhumane. Geo wonders whether this can in any way be considered a march of progress that would be unlikely to be reversed. I don't know about that, but Pinker seems to think that with all the lapses into brutality that we can identify, still there is a heightening of humanity over the long term that presumably would have some durability.

Concerning tbarron's question about the role that religion played in either the crimes of the past or the improvements through the ages, Pinker seems so far not to finger religion for special censure or grant it any redeeming value. Maybe in later chapters he might portray that many-faced phenomenon in a positive light, as another atheist, Jonathan Haidt, recently did. He is really very effective in laying out the strangeness of many gentle Christians today identifying with the violent symbols of their faith and glossing over so many stories that they would repudiate, if only they weren't contained in their holy book.

[Saffron]

I just had to post this here:

New York City Has Day With 'No Violent Crime', For First Time In History
The Huffington Post UK | By Jessica Elgot Posted: 29/11/2012 09:39 GMT Updated: 29/11/2012 13:23 GMT

And this from the BBC:

New York City has had an entire day with no violent crime for the first time in living memory.
No stabbings, murders or muggings were reported to NYC's police for 24 hours on Monday.
"In a city of eight million people, this is extremely rare," said police writer Thomas Reppetto.
Some people reckon it's down to officers being more active recently, and doing more stopping and frisking.
The number of murders happening in the city is at its lowest in more than 50 years.

[Saffron]

Hey, I just heard Steven Pinker on the radio! It was part interview and part clips from his TED talk. I am still not convinced me that the world is less violent. I just might have to pick his book up.

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/12/175619007 ... lent-place

[LevV]

You could buy the book or you could go to the site below to get an excellent detailed summary of the book.
I read about 80% of the book. It was an effort at times, but worth it. He certainly supports his statements with an exhaustive amount of statistical evidence.

newbooksinbrief.com

[DWill]

You could buy the book or you could go to the site below to get an excellent detailed summary of the book.
I read about 80% of the book. It was an effort at times, but worth it. He certainly supports his statements with an exhaustive amount of statistical evidence.

newbooksinbrief.com

80% is quite good, I'd say. It'd be hard to say that Pinker isn't exhaustive in his treatment of the topic, but that can lead to exhaustion, too. After I read about 200 pp and had to give the book back to the library, I read Aaron's great summary on newbooksinbrief.

saffron, you say you're not convinced about the decline in violence. I won't use the word 'indisputable' here, but the data look pretty convincing. I think what's important to realize and very significant is that the decline is proportionate to population size, so that in most cases we wouldn't be talking about a decline in absolute numbers. We'd be seeing more rapes, homicides, assaults, etc. currently than in the past, but the rate is lower. Taking a page from Daniel Kahneman (whose book I still owe you), I note that we humans are poor intuitive statisticians, which is going to mean that absolute numbers will impress us while rates won't; we won't even care much about rates. 10,000 murders sounds like a lot to us whether we're aware that the population of the U.S has burgeoned or not. And it is a lot, nothing to shrug off. It's just that we can't logically support a conclusion that the society is more violent and dangerous, because rates are the controlling statistic here.

When it comes to certain kinds of violence, there will be a decrease in the absolute numbers as well, which of course means a plummeting rate. Racially motivated violence is probably an example; violence against women also (again, despite the horrors that reach us from places like India); violence against children (again, despite the impression we have of a crisis, and of course excluding the abortion question); and violence against animals.

[LevV]

Of course, the numbers are quite convincing and we should take some comfort in that. The frustration lies in knowing that in this 21st century we have the resources and knowledge to do so much better.